Tobacco Truth

Tobacco Control has morphed into a crusade intent on demonizing both tobacco users and the industry supplying them. This blog examines and comments on scientific issues surrounding tobacco policies - and fallacies.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

A
new study from researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the National
Institute on Aging finds that even smokers in their 60s who quit can reduce
their chances of dying early.

In
1995, 160,000 people age 50-71 years were enrolled in the study; data on their
smoking and quitting was collected in 2004-2005.Researchers documented causes of death and
calculated rates through 2011 among never, current and former smokers, with
adjustment for other risk factors.The
study appears in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine (abstract here).

Current
smokers were three times as likely to die during the study as never
smokers.Compared with current smokers,
former smokers had significantly lower death rates; the magnitude of the
reduction correlated with the age when they quit.For example, smokers who quit in their 30s
had a death rate that was 57% lower, while those who quit in their 50s had a
36% lower rate.Even smokers who quit in
their 60s had a 23% lower rate.

This
study should give hope to smokers of all ages, but this is not new
information.In 1996, Dr. Philip Cole
and I published similar research in the journal Epidemiology (here).We estimated how long never and current
smokers of various ages would live on average.In addition, we estimated remaining years for quitters and
switchers.Here are our results:

Average Years of Life Remaining According to Tobacco Use and Age

Sex and Age (years)

Never Smoker

Continuing Smoker

Quitter

Switcher

Men

40

42

34

41

41

50

32

25

30

30

60

23

17

18

18

Women

40

44

40

44

44

50

35

31

35

35

60

26

22

24

24

The
good news: No matter what age, smokers can improve their life expectancy if
they quit or switch.It’s never too late
to move to a smoke-free substitute.

Friday, December 2, 2016

“A
worker at a wine store in Grand Central Terminal suffered burns to his hand and
leg after an e-cigarette caught fire in his pocket,” according to a November
23rd ABC news story (here).

This
incident requires context. Christopher
E. Lalonde, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria in Canada with
expertise on e-cigarette hardware, made the following comments:

“The device appears
to be a Reuleaux RS200 model... It has various safety features designed to
protect against such incidents: reverse battery protection, overheating/auto cut-off,
battery venting, etc…Not foolproof by any means, but ‘e-cigs’ and ‘cellphones’
don’t explode, batteries do.

“The Reuleaux
requires three 18650 batteries to operate. There appear to be six batteries in
the photo — along with an assortment of metal coins.

“The three
seemingly intact brown coloured batteries (far left, far right, and one
remaining in the device) are likely LG 18650s that are recommended for use with
this model.

“…I suspect the three silver coloured charred
batteries are likely the cause of the explosion. If they were carried along
with loose coins in the victim’s pocket, then the “e-cig” didn’t explode — the
loose batteries did.” (my emphasis)

Professor
Lalonde, while noting that he has “every sympathy for the unfortunate victim of
this incident,” provided valuable insight by suggesting that, based on the
photographic evidence, batteries interacting with pocket change was the likely
cause of this explosion.

Lithium
ion batteries are essential for a wide range of electronic devices. Consumers should use, charge and store them with
care.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

What if the federal
government told you that cars are as dangerous as motorcycles?Well, you would be living – and dying – in TobaccoWorld.Read my commentary that appeared in the
Washington Examiner (here) and is
reprinted below.

________________________________

Motorcycles
are more dangerous than cars. We know this because a government agency, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, routinely provides data that
confirms it.

For
example, the NHSTA
reports
there were 0.85 auto-related deaths for every 100 million miles Americans drove
in 2014. By contrast, the death rate for motorcycles was 22.96 for every 100
million miles, making motorcycles 27 times deadlier than cars.

What
if the government ignored this difference in risk and assumed the motorcycle
death rate applied to all vehicles? In other words, what if all vehicle
manufacturers had to be governed by motorcycle regulations and what if
insurance premiums for car owners were pegged at the much higher rates for
motorcycles?

The
effect of such irrationality would be intolerable, with cars priced out of
reach, companies put out of business and consumers left without choice.
Policymakers would never inflict such pain on the American driving public – at
least, not on purpose.

But
that's just the sort of irrationality being imposed on the nation’s consumers
of smoke-free tobacco products, with tragic consequences. Federal agencies
routinely conflate the risks of using smoke-free tobacco products with the
risks of smoking, despite decades of
scientific studies demonstrating that smoke-free products are vastly
safer
than cigarettes.

Smokeless
tobacco products are required by the Food and Drug Administration to carry
demonstrably inaccurate and misleading safety
warnings.
Companies that attempt to challenge those messages are held to the unnecessary
and financially crippling standard of proving that their products would have
virtually no health impact on the population.

The
FDA ignores extensive evidence from federal surveys of the role e-cigarettes
are playing in helping smokers to quit—including some 2.5
million successes—while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
withholds evidence that smokeless
tobacco is safer.

The
Affordable Care Act permits health insurers to charge higher premiums for any
recreational nicotine use, not just smoking. Most life insurance
companies also fail to recognize established risk differences, as they charge
higher premiums for users of all nicotine products, even medicines.

No
one confuses motorcycles with cars, just as no one, other than government
officials, confuses cigarettes with e-cigarettes or cans of moist snuff. The
risk differential between combustible and smoke-free tobacco products is proven
and profound. It’s time to tell the public the truth, and to regulate
accordingly.

My Credentials

I am a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, I hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and I am a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L.

For the past 20 years I have been involved in research and policy development regarding tobacco harm reduction (THR). THR advocates acknowledge that there are millions of smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit with conventional cessation methods involving tobacco and nicotine abstinence, and we encourage them to use cigarette substitutes that are far safer.

My research has appeared in a broad range of medical and scientific journals. I have authored commentaries in the general press and I wrote the book, For Smokers Only: How Smokeless Tobacco Can Save Your Life. In 2003 I served as an expert witness at a Congressional hearing on tobacco harm reduction, and I have spoken at numerous international forums, including one held in London at the British Houses of Parliament.

My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.